Turkish Islamists & The Hagia Sophia

Turns out it’s not just a rumor that powerful Islamists within Turkey’s government are agitating to turn the Hagia Sophia back into a mosque. One of the greatest Christian churches in the world was converted to a mosque after the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in the 15th century. It was made a museum under Kemal Ataturk’s secularist government in the 1930s. But now, those days may be coming to an end. Last month, a nationalist party introduced a bill to officially return the Hagia Sophia to mosque status. And:

“We currently stand next to the Hagia Sophia Mosque,” Turkey’s deputy prime minister, Bulent Arinc, remarked last month during a dedication of a museum of Caucasus carpets and rugs in the Hagia Sophia complex. “We are looking at a sad Hagia Sophia but hopefully we will see it smiling again soon.”

Arinc, also a senior Cabinet minister from the ruling Islamic-rooted Justice and Development Party, mentioned two recent conversions of smaller Byzantine-era museums — in Trabzon in the northeast and Iznik near Istanbul — that have become working mosques.

The speech was just the latest call for the building to be converted into a mosque after a sermon in October by the imam of the neighboring Sultan Ahmet mosque. He told worshippers a conversion must take place, and his comments were soon followed by a campaign launched by the far-right National Turkish Student Association.

There is no need to do this. None. It is an act of cultural imperialism, nothing more. The Islamists simply want to rub the noses of secularists and Christians in their powerlessness under the new Islamist order. It is true that in ages past, triumphant religions made their own temples out of the temples of the defeated. The Church did this to many pagan temples, and, notably, seized the grand Cordoba mosque in the Reconquista, and turned it into a church. Neither Christians nor Muslims have clean hands in these matters.

That said, nearly a century ago, the secular rulers of Turkey made the generous decision to make the Hagia Sophia, which stood as one of the world’s great Christian churches for 1,000 years, into neutral ground between the religions. That part of Istanbul is home to glorious mosques, most notably the famed Blue Mosque. There are plenty of beautiful and historic places for Muslims to pray in that part of Istanbul. The Hagia Sophia stands today as a monument, not a house of worship. I have been there. Were it still a mosque, that would be one thing. But again, for most of the last century it has been a museum. What is wrong with that? We live in a different era now, an era in which among advanced countries, this kind of thing is not supposed to happen.

And yes, if the Cordoba cathedral had been taken by the Spanish government a hundred years ago and made into a museum, I may not have liked it, but I would see an attempt by the current government to return it to Christian status, however much it might please me as a Christian, as an unwise, unnecessary, and aggressive act.

This proposal by members of the Islamist government is a stunning act of cultural aggression against secularist Turks, Christians, and academics, who have been protesting the idea, to no avail. If it succeeds, I hope there is a widespread movement in the West to boycott tourism to Turkey in protest.

At GetReligion, TMatt says this is a big deal, and it’s time for our media to cover it. Yes. The official Islamification of life in this NATO country that still wants to be part of the European Union is a big story. If the Turks retake the Hagia Sophia for Islam, that should forever slam the door to the possibility of Turkey’s joining the EU. It would be helpful if European governments would make that clear to Ankara.

The idea of sharing the space sounds like a good one on the face of it but just imagine if someone stole something from you. Would they have a right to share it with you just because they kept it for 500 years? Or would it always be wrong to expect you the rightful owner to share it with those who stole it? Does a moral question matter less with the passage of time? Does it not matter that a religion that claims to be moral still claims a stolen building as its own? What does that say about that religion? What could it say about that religion if they gave it back? Are these questions really unimportant?

Peggy the reason there aren’t more Christians in Turkey goes back to a mutual campaign of expulsion the Greeks and Turks engaged in about half a century ago. That just left Armenians (you’d be surprised how many are still there, but they go to their own churches) and Christians Arabs.

Liam, it was not just any public building. It was a sacred place of worship. Yes it was stolen like the whole city was by conquest. It would indeed be too much to ask for the Turks to give the city back, but giving back one building would not be asking too much. It would be a true sign of respect and peace between the two faiths and an important marker of maturity for the Islamic faith. Seriously, how mature is it to not only take a holy place from others but to also 500+ years later to still be clutching screaming its mine its all mine. That is an image that could be done away with with the stroke of a pen.

Just to put this in perspective, how did Christians feel about communist regimes turning churches into museums? Hasn’t it been often demanded that they be returned to use as churches?

I favor keeping this vast edifice a museum to the entire history of its past use, but the sentiment for restoration is understandable.

Anglican Peggy, do you seriously expect Turkey to give the Hagia Sophia back to a Christian body to run as a church? Why do you carp on this if its not a realistic possibility. Is the USA going to give North America back to the tribes that held it before Europeans arrived? That’s been only 500 years also

Siralys, yes I do expect them to the same as I would expect anyone to right a wrong. By your reasoning, we shoukd not waste our time expecting moral behavior of others if its unlikely that they will comply. Standards dont becone less important in this case. It is always worth it to insist upon basic moral standards. Returning the stolen worship space of Christians would be the moral & mature thing to do. I see no reason to expect less or to keep quiet about it.

You know, TMatt’s comments are right on the money: I just don’t think most people care. “great Christian sanctuary” – what does that even mean to the individualistic post-modern mind?

I think the attitude goes something like “It’s their building, let them do as they like with it” – unless, of course, it offends our political sensibilities. Even then, we’ll do our best not to notice.

You know, if many believers don’t even hold to the permanence of orthodox Christian doctrines anymore, the teaching of their own churches, why should we think they’d care about a building?

Is this a serious plan or just some hotheads blowing smoker. the Turkish equivalent of a federal Marriage Amendment, which sounds good to those who support it but will never happen for practical political reasons. Also, it’s my understanding that Istanbul is a very westernized and secular city, about as typical of Turkey as San Francisco is of the US. (I know someone who grew up there and who still has family there). And yes, Christian or not, I easily see a good deal of outcry from the rest of the (non-Muslim) world over this, due to cultural and archaeological considerations. Plus damage to the fragile state of Greek-Turkish relations which does impact the EU, and probably to Russian-Turkish relations as well.

Virtually every Christian church in Europe of a certain age is built on the ruins of Greek, Roman, and other pre-Christian temples. On behalf of my Celtic, Nordic, and Roman ancestors, I hereby relinquish any claim to those churches and – I think very magnanimously – declare that we, the descendants of the untold number murdered for their faiths, wish the Christians well in their use of those buildings. One small thing, though. We’d like the foundations back.

It would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to get the Hagai Sophia back to working condition as a church. The Turks sure aren’t going to foot the bill for that. The Orthodox would have pay for it, an enormous amount of money that could be better spent in many other ways. (I don’t regard building cathedrals as wasteful, I’m not a protestant, but doing it in a city that can’t fill the churches it has just seems like vanity)

Turning it back into a church is an even worse idea than turning it back into a mosque.

@Jane:
“FWIW, when I see street preachers and the like, and people passing them by and giving them weird looks or brushing them off, I sometimes buy them coffee, because, as a sexual minority, I know what it’s like to be ‘the weird person.’ I look forward to the day when people understand us, as well, and are willing that we too should not live as second-class citizens.”

That’s a beautiful thing to do Jane; good for you.

FWIW in turn, although as a culturally conservative Catholic I must hold that sodomy (straight or gay) is a sinful violation of Natural Law, as a prudential matter, I think same-sex civil marriage is the right way forward for Western societies right now. I wish you well in your enjoyment of your civil rights, and hope with Rod that Christian businesses (even those in the wedding industry) will be allowed to continue under the emerging social order.

@Uhh:
“On behalf of my Celtic, Nordic, and Roman ancestors, I hereby relinquish any claim to those churches and – I think very magnanimously – declare that we, the descendants of the untold number murdered for their faiths, wish the Christians well in their use of those buildings.”

Your comment reads as though “untold numbers” were murdered for paganism among the Celts, Nordics, and Romans.

Dubious.

Romans: Even Gibbon called the Theodosian legal persecution of paganism “gentle,”

Celts: The Welsh were Roman Christians at the fall of the Empire, and the Gaels were converted by missionaries like Patrick.

Nordics: Other than Charlemagne’s slaughter of pagan Saxons (who aren’t really “Nordic,” but I’ll count for you anyway) Germanic and Nordic peoples were converted either by missionaries, or by follow-on conversions after their kings converted.

(OTOH, one group of pagans who apparently are not among your ancestors–the Baltic peoples–were indeed slaughtered for their paganism by the Teutonic Knights, in one of Christianity’s sadly many diabolical sins.)

The nice thing about “untold numbers” is that it is vague. Surely you’re not suggesting that the Christian history against non-Christians is untainted but for your one example. I restricted my proclamation to Celts, Nordic peoples, and pagan Romans because they reflect my ancestry. Now, how about those foundations?

My understanding is that church attendance in Russia and Greece is lower than it is in America. Which is not to say that Christianity in America is healthy, nor is it to say that we are spiritually healthier than Russia. It’s just to say that evangelization is something that the church needs to do all over Europe and America. My belief is preaching the Gospel, and encouraging people to live better lives, should be a bigger priority for all Christian churches, than the fate of the icons in Hagia Sophia.

Anglican Peggy,

Are you under the impression I think the Turkish conquest of Constantinople, and its shabby treatment of Christian peoples, are moral? I don’t. But I also think that’s a lost cause. Constantinople is going to be a Muslim, Turkish city for the foreseeable future, and nothing can change that. We need to pick our battles, and this isn’t the battle to fight.

A museum is a reliquary of times departed. A secular museum is a reliquary of man’s hubris, man the measure of all things.

The Byzantines lost their war against the Mohammedan marauders fair and square. They were not equal to the challenge. They had been attacked, despoliated and occupied in their former territories long since. Thus the fate they suffered. Lack of preparation, lack of resources, lack of will. Regrettable, pitiable, lamentable, yet ineluctable.

After the Council of Florence, the mob exclaimed, not without sympathy, and indeed, encouragement and echoing from the tyrants that ruled them: Better the Turkish turban than the Latin mitre! What is the expression? “Good things come to those who pray”? No matter the misquote. This is more germane.

We cannot change History. But we can give a polliciversion to those same effete Byzantines for their copious non-cooperation in the Crusades.

So let this glorious ancient edifice revert to its former status as at least a place where the worship of God is paramount. The rite may differ, less glorious perhaps than the resplendent Greek liturgy of Chrysostomos, but all the same less irreverent than the insipid Roman novus ordo.

[NFR: Oh, now you’ve done it. There will be a Sack of Constantinople throwdown in 10…9…8… — RD]

I have been sifting through the comments and have distinct sympathies with several points of view. It is a difficult question. Is the basilica to be considered as stolen or as the booty of the conqueror? And according to whose law? That of empires long extinct? Quis dicat?

At any rate, I find it not only astonishing, but supernally ironic, than a commentress self-nuncupated “Anglican” Peggy should bemoan “stolen” churches. What sort of blinkered view of history is at work here?

Where do the “Anglicans” think they’d got the great cathedrals of England? That Tudor trucidator whose spawn still stands at the head of the “Anglican” “church” stole more than the much maligned Mohammedans ever did. His iniquity and crime and sin is the greater by far. He, a Christian, a Catholic, stole, for his exorbitant lust, the patrimony of England, the heritage of Augustine.

Perhaps I misconstrue “Anglican” Peggy’s intent. If so, I here repent publicly. Let her then declare that the “Anglican” churches of England should revert to their true Roman patrimony. As well the Universities. As well the Monarchy.

The cathedrals of England were built with English money and English labor. They were neither funded nor built by the Pope and they were not the property of the See of St Peter. The descendants of those who were praying in them in 1500 were praying in them in 1600.

I think you’re right about the genetics of the Windsors. Perhaps we can agree that there is a more fluid connotation to “spawn”?

I might be able to concede your point about “under new management” and “stolen” if you’ll allow that if I invade, say, your business, kill your employees, and drive you and your family out, your establishment would not be deemed to have been “stolen” but rather “under new management.” Lest you rebut that you’d have the law on me to enforce your “rights”, let me add the proviso that I am also the king.

L’Etat c’est moi was old before Le Roi Soleil rose. It’s good to be the king.

I confess I am at a loss in trying to understand your comment. I never said that the churches were the property of the Holy See.

Moreover, the mere donation of money does not confer property rights. In fact, it does precisely the opposite. Neither does mere labor confer property rights. In fact, the laborers were either paid or donated their labor.

The churches were the property of the Roman Catholic Church in England. The Church, not the government. Not the monarchy. They were stolen by the king along with the despoliated monasteries. The resultant “church” of England became a department of state with the king as its head.

But, beyond that, the patrimony to which I referred is not that of “property” but of the Faith.

Re: The churches were the property of the Roman Catholic Church in England.

The cathedrals were the property of the Church in England, and more specifically of the individual bishoprics and archbishoprics for which they were built. Those sees continued in operation and continued to used their cathedrals as houses of Christian worship, albeit in schism from Rome. The pope had no claim on them, schism or no.
Would you suggest that the Byzantines “stole” Hagia Sophia from Rome when the Great Schism broke and the Crusaders were right to take it back for the Pope in 1204?

Huh? I thought you were arguing the English Church stole the cathedrals of England from, well, the English Church.
You’d have a far better case arguing that the Tudors stole the monasteries from the Church. That really is true given that the monks were sent packing and the monasteries were turned into manors for assorted royal hangers-on.

In my country (Mexico) churchs and convents are property of the state. Is in use by church. Some catholic churchs are now in use by methodistor other christian churchs. And somo of them became museums or art places. Maybe we would like to preserve them for its original prupose. But they are well care. And you can visit and admire the work of people who, moved by faith created them. That is something that no government can change. Hagia Sophia will not be destroyed. Will be for many more years a testimony of faith. Does not matter the use of the building

“I would also ask what faith pretending to be a moral one would take the worship place of another and then never repent of that action?”

The Old Testament has numerous examples of the Israelites destroying Canaanite worship sites, because they thought YHWH told them to do it. That’s the way it goes in religions, whoever has the most power, wins (at least until Secularism diluted their power).

“With its architecture, its history and its legends, the Hagia Sophia is an edifice of Christian culture,” she told Turkish television. Addressing the Muslim majority in Turkey, she added: “You conquered this structure and you prayed there as Muslims for centuries, but that does not change the fact that this is a Christian building with some minarets tacked on.” “As Muslims, we want it to be a mosque, but we also have to think of the foreigners and their rights,”